14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 232a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Exhaustion of benefits — Discovery — PIP log — Where insurer denied payment of medical bill on ground that PIP benefits were exhausted, provider was entitled to pre-suit production of PIP log to enable it to determine the date benefits were exhausted and the date that provider’s bill was received
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant(s), vs. FLORIDA EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, KANG AND ASSOCIATES, MD, PA., as Assignee of Jose Fret, Appellee(s). Circuit Court, 18th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Seminole County. Case No. 06-20-AP. January 29, 2007. Appeal from County Court Seminole County, Florida Honorable John R. Sloop. Counsel: Jennings L. Hurt, Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Kevin B. Weiss, Weiss Legal Group, P.A., Maitland, for Appellee.
ON REHEARING
(PERRY, J.) THIS ACTION is being taken by the Court pursuant to the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing. Pursuant to Seal Products v. Mansfield, 705 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), this Court grants rehearing, vacates the previous opinion in the above-referenced case dated January 4, 2007, and issues the following opinion.
Geico General Insurance Company (“Geico”) appeals an order entering summary judgment in favor of Florida Emergency Physicians (“FEP”). Pursuant to the reasoning provided herein, this Court affirms.
In this case, FEP submitted a bill to Geico for $576.00 for services rendered as the result of an automobile accident. Geico informed FEP that its medical bill would not be paid because the PIP benefits were exhausted. FEP requested a PIP payout sheet and any explanations of benefits generated concerning the bill. Geico provided a document entitled, “PIP/MED Register-Payment Record,” which indicated that Geico paid $10,000 to Florida Hospital Medical Center. Thereafter, FEP requested further information from Geico concerning the PIP payout. FEP indicated that although it was in receipt of the payment record, it needed the PIP log to verify the date the benefits exhausted and the date that FEP’s bill was received. Geico did not provide any further information, and the instant action ensued.
FEP moved for summary judgment in this case concerning its entitlement to the PIP-log information. Pursuant to New Hampshire Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Rural Metro Ambulance, a/a/o William Zaniboni, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 573a (Fla. 18th Jud. Cir., Nov. 18, 2005), on rehearing, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of FEP, ruling that FEP was entitled to the requested pre-suit information. Thereafter, the trial court denied Geico’s motion for rehearing.
Assuming that the issue concerning whether the trial court entering summary judgment is preserved for appeal, this Court finds that the trial court did not err in entering summary judgment in favor of FEP and did not err in denying Geico’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment. Pursuant to Zaniboni, FEP is entitled to the PIP log. See Zaniboni (agreeing that assignee has a right to determine, pre-suit, what claims have been made and when; if any claims have been paid or denied; whether the deductible has been met; and if not, how much remains; and whether benefits have truly been exhausted). Without the PIP log, FEP is unable to determine its status as a claimant with respect to whether the deductible had been met. Furthermore, as the standard of review on a motion for rehearing is an abuse of discretion, this Court cannot say that the trial court’s denial of Geico’s Motion for Rehearing was an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, the Order Regarding Insurance Company’s Pre-Suit Production of Documents in Personal Injury Protection Cases is AFFIRMED and the Order on Defendant’s Motion for Rehearing/Clarification is AFFIRMED.
